As I have often noted, I grew up in a family with long ties to the Republican Party. For eight (8) years I held a City Committee seat for the City Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia Beach which I actually incorporated back in the 1990's. But the Republican Party changed from what it had once been in the days of my parents and grand parents. The catalyst for the change in my view, the Christofascists who deliberately and steadily infiltrated to local city and county committees, with foolish moderates voting extremists on to such committees. and thinking that they could still maintain control. As this occurred the party morphed into a sectarian party with slavish obedience to Christofascists and falsely labeled "family values" organization which in reality were hate groups and veiled white supremacy groups. The intertwining of Christian extremism and civil laws got to the point where I could no longer remain a part of the deepening cancer and resigned, stating that until the concept of separation of church and state was again recognized, I could no longer be a Republican. Things have only worsened in the years since. Now the party that claims devotion to "Christian values" has become a party of hate and utter mistreatment of the less fortunate. The healthcare bill passed by House Republicans exemplifies the moral sickness that is now mainstream in the GOP. Andrew Sullivan sums up the situation well and why many of us are now former Republicans:

You
might think Obamacare would violate my generally conservative principles, but
it didn’t. In fact, it seemed to me to be an effective marriage of conservative
principles and, well, human decency. The decency part comes from not blaming or
punishing the sick for their condition. The conservative part comes from the
incremental nature of the reform, and its reliance on the private sector to
provide a public good. For good measure, it actually saved the government
money, and it slowed soaring health-care costs. The exchanges, with predictable
early hiccups, largely worked — a case study in the benefits of market
competition. The law allowed for experiments to test how efficient health care
could be. It even insisted on personal responsibility by mandating individual
coverage. And the concept of insurance is not socialism; it’s a matter simply
of pooling risk as widely as possible. If any European conservative party were
to propose such a system, it would be pilloried as a far-right plot. And yet
the Republican Party opposed it with a passion that became very hard for me to
disentangle from hatred of Obama himself.

The
Trump GOP’s attempt to abolish it is therefore, to my mind, neither
conservative nor decent. It’s reactionary and
callous. Its effective abandonment of 95 percent of us with
preexisting conditions will strike real terror in a lot of people’s hearts. Its
gutting of Medicaid will force millions of the poor to lose health care almost
altogether. It will bankrupt the struggling members of the working and middle
classes who find themselves in a serious health crisis. It could hurt
Republicans in the midterms —though that will be cold comfort for the countless
forced into penury or sickness because of Trump’s desire for a “win.” But it’s
clarifying for me. It forces me to back a Democratic Party I don’t particularly
care for. And it destroys any notion I might have had that American
conservatism gives a damn about the vulnerable. It really is a deal-breaker for
me. I hope many others feel exactly the same way.

Thankfully, the U.S. Senate has made it clear that the House bill is not acceptable, but be prepared for Republicans to continue to try to include its most hideous aspects. Meanwhile, as Trump/Republican voting "Christians" pack the pews in church tomorrow morning, understand that it is all a charade. Such people are not adherents of the Gospel message. They do not give a damn about others. Hate, greed and vile treatment of others are the real basis of their "faith." No wonder the numbers of "Nones" are growing rapidly.

Equality has finally won out in Bermuda as the island nation's Supreme Court struck down bans on same sex marriage. Sadly, as is the case in a number of Caribbean island nations - although Bermuda is in the Atlantic Ocean - ignorance embracing and reactionary religious beliefs were for too long allowed to deprive others of civil rights. The husband and I were in Bermuda as part of a cruise in 2015 and found the country to be beautiful and an attractive destination but for its legalized discrimination against same sex couples. What was the most ironic is that the country desperately wants in increase is tourism industry which has declined due to the growing popularity of cruises yet had a "Not Welcome" sign of sorts for LGBT tourists - a group that has been documented to stay longer and spend more than straight tourists. The Royal Gazette looks at this welcomed development:

A gay couple
have won a landmark legal ruling that paves the way for same-sex marriage in
Bermuda.

Bermudian
Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé, Greg DeRoche, embarked on their fight
for equal rights after the Registrar-General rejected their application to
marry on the island.

They took their
case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Human Rights Act took primacy in
Bermuda and protected their right to marry.

Yesterday a
packed courtroom in the Dame Lois Browne-Evans Building erupted into
spontaneous applause after Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons ruled in the
couple’s favour.

“The common law
definition of marriage, that marriage is the voluntary union for life of one
man and one woman, and its reflection in the Marriage Act section 24 and the
Matrimonial Clauses Act section 15 (c) are inconsistent with the provisions of
the Human Rights Act as they constitute deliberate different treatment on the
basis of sexual orientation,” Mrs Justice Simmons said.

“In so doing the
common law discriminates against same-sex couples by excluding them from
marriage and more broadly speaking the institution of marriage.

“On the facts of
this case the applicants were discriminated against on the basis of their
sexual orientation when the Registrar refused to process their notice of
intended marriage.

“Same-sex
couples denied access to marriage laws and entry into the institution of
marriage have been denied what the Human Rights Commission terms a “basket of
goods”, that is rights of a spouse contained in numerous enactments of
Parliament.”

She added: “The
applicants are entitled to an Order of Mandamus compelling the Registrar to act
in accordance with the requirements of the Marriage Act and a Declaration that
same-sex couples are entitled to be married under the Marriage Act 1944.”

Mr Godwin
described the ruling as a big step in the right direction and told The Royal
Gazette that he and Mr DeRoche would be resubmitting their application to
marry to the Registrar-General “within days”.

“It has been a
long time coming,” he said. “This ruling, although it was in our favour ...
there is still so much more to do in Bermuda.

“Hopefully, this
brings forward hope and courage for those who were or are afraid to speak up or
come out. This is a moment we are proud of and will never forget.”

Meanwhile,
yesterday’s 48-page judgment was welcomed by the Rainbow Alliance who declared
the ruling as victory for all same-gender loving people in Bermuda. The group
said “history has been made and love has won”.

Senator Jeff
Baron, the Minister of National Security, added: “Today’s ruling affirms that
equality is for all — regardless of who you love, what you look like or who you
pray to. And equality, when it’s real, isn’t conditional. Let’s acknowledge
that there’s a tremendous amount of work to do, right here at home, to move
barriers and heal our community. Let’s keep working together, let’s build this
community of supporters and champions for equality.

“And despite
hurtful attacks let us reach across and engage the most sceptical citizens and
show them that Bermudian values; values of love, respect and inclusiveness, can
be found in every corner of this island.”

Jamaica needs to take heed of what has happened in Bermuda and end its legalized homophobia. I'd love to go back to Jamaica, but that will not happen until that countries anti-gay laws change.

For the record, I continue to believe that Russian dictator - that is, after all, what he is - Vladimir Putin helped steal the 2016 presidential election for Donald Trump and that it is very likely that the Trump campaign cooperated with that effort. Now, the same effort seems to be taking place in France where on the eve of the presidential run off election a massive dump of hacked documents has taken place with the apparent goal of damaging Emmanuel Macron and throwing the election to neo-fascist Marine Le Pen. Le Pen has very open ties to Putin and her political party has even received funding from Putin's government and henchmen. One would hope that French voters will be smarter than many angry white voters were and will see the hacking and document dump for what it is and run screaming away from La Pen. If not, expect Putin to try to steal Germany's election next. The irony in all of this is that the would be authoritarian rulers claim that are out to protect traditional values and the common citizen, yet as the House GOP's Trumpcare bill reveals, that is the furthest thing from the truth. The House GOP's bill basically tells millions to just get sick and die and do the wealthy and the oligarchs a favor by doing so. The New York Times looks at what can only be a Russian effort to undermine and destroy France's democracy. Here are excerpts (note that fake documents were mixed in with real ones to dupe voters and lazy journalists):

PARIS — On the eve of the most consequential French presidential
election in decades, the staff of the centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron said
late Friday that the campaign had been targeted by a “massive and coordinated”
hacking operation, one with the potential to destabilize the nation’s democracy
before voters go to the polls on Sunday.

The digital attack, which
involved a dump of campaign documents including emails and accounting records,
emerged hours before a legal prohibition on campaign communications went into
effect. While the leak may be of little consequence, the timing makes it
extremely difficult for Mr. Macron to mitigate any damaging fallout before the
runoff election, in which he faces the far-right candidate Marine Le Pen, who
has pledged to pull France out of the euro and
hold a referendum to leave the European Union.

The hacking immediately evoked comparisons to last year’s presidential
election in the United States, during which American intelligence agencies have
concluded that Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, ordered
an “influence campaign” to benefit the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump.

Groups linked to Russia,
that are also believed to have been involved in the hacking related to the 2016
United States presidential campaign, have previously been accused of trying to
breach the Macron organization. Security experts tracking the activity of
suspected Russian hackers say they believe those same groups were involved in
this latest attack.

In
a statement, the Macron campaign said the hackers had mixed fake documents
along with authentic ones, “to sow doubt and misinformation.”

The Macron campaign said the documents leaked Friday were stolen
several weeks ago after the personal and professional emails of staff members
at En Marche, his political movement, were hacked.

It was
not the first reported hacking attempt of Mr. Macron’s campaign. In April, a report
by the cybersecurity firm Trend Micro said there was evidence that the
campaign was targeted in March by what appeared to be the same Russian
operatives who were responsible for hacks of Democratic campaign officials
before last year’s American presidential election. Mr. Macron’s campaign said
the attack was unsuccessful.

Vitali Kremez, the director of research at Flashpoint, a business risk
intelligence company in New York, said he suspected the involvement of a Russian-linked
espionage operation known as APT28. “The key goals and objectives of the
campaign appear to be to undermine Macron’s presidential candidacy and cast
doubt on the democratic electoral process in general,” he said.

“If
indeed driven by Moscow, this leak appears to be a significant escalation over
the previous Russian operations aimed at the U.S. presidential election,
expanding the approach and scope of effort from simple espionage efforts
towards more direct attempts to sway the outcome,” Mr. Kremez added.

Security
researchers who have been tracking APT28, also known as Fancy Bear, say it has
been moving aggressively against NATO members and a variety of Western targets
using various hacking tools, including so-called spear-phishing attacks, but also
through the exploitation of vulnerabilities in technologies that allow hackers
to invade their targets undetected by security software.

The National Commission for Control of the Electoral Campaign, a
regulatory body, said it was contacted by the Macron campaign on Friday night.
The commission, which planned to meet on Saturday about the hacking, urged the
news media to be cautious in its reporting.

“It
therefore asks the media, and in particular their websites, not to report on
the content of these data, recalling that the dissemination of false
information is liable to fall within the scope of the law — in particular
criminal law,” the commission said.

The
Macron campaign appealed to journalists to not do the hackers’ bidding by
widely publicizing the contents of the emails.

Given what is known about Russia's involvement and Putin's goals of an ascendant Russia at the expense of Europe and America, I cannot fathom why anyone sane would vote for someone favored by Putin.

On a different note, criminal hacking is not only occurring in the political realm. More and more businesses and law firms are targets with the goal being to steal trade secrets and steal monies in trust accounts. Nationwide, millions of dollars have been stolen from law firm trust accounts through hacked e-mails and altered wire instructions.

Trump and Christofascists/hate merchants James Dobson and Tony Perkins

As noted, Donald Trump's "religious liberty" executive order has left the anti-gay forces among the Christofascist hugely disappointed. The longed for exemption of Christofascists from non-discrimination laws and ordinances did not materialize. What the hate merchants did receive was purported cover for right wing churches to openly engage in political activities - not that many weren't already doing so on a de facto basis anyways. Here in Virginia, The Family Foundation, perhaps the leading hate group in Virginia, has for years operated a network with conservative churches and pastors and pushed these churches to vigorously work for TFF's regressive and theocratic agenda. Thus, the executive order may not result in any change in the reality on the ground that much. More importantly, it may accelerate the exodus from Christianity and religion in general that is sweeping the country. I have long thought that despite a uptick in aggressiveness and stridency, long term the Christofascists may be one of the most powerful elements in the death of Christianity. A piece in Salon looks at this possibility. Here are highlights:

Thursday,
on the National Day of Prayer, Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Promoting Free Speech and
Religious Liberty.” . . . . The final draft of the order, however,
was a drastic rewriting. All the LGBT-specific attacks were taken out and
abortion was not mentioned, though the new order does direct federal officials
to consider changing health care regulations in order to stop insurance
coverage of contraception for huge swaths of women. Instead, in a somewhat
surprising move, the executive order largely focuses on undermining a law meant
to discourage religious authorities from using their powers to influence
elections.

This
move is obviously meant as a giveaway to leaders of the religious right, who
did so much to help elect Trump, and also as a way for Republicans to
consolidate power by allowing conservative Christian pastors even more
leeway to pressure their congregants to vote Republican. But this power grab
could well backfire on the Christian right. Instead of drumming up more votes
for Republicans, breaking down barriers between church and state may end up
driving even more people out of the churches entirely.

Trump’s
executive order doesn’t change the law — that would take an act of Congress.
But it officially discourages the IRS from auditing or fining religious
organizations and churches that may be in violation of it. . . . . it’s a
solution looking for a problem. There’s no evidence that churches are being
treated especially harshly by the IRS.

Still,
the release of this executive order and all the publicity around it could
encourage ministers, especially those of the fundamentalist variety, to get
even bolder when it comes to campaigning from the pulpit. That’s where
there’s a good chance this whole effort could backfire. There’s a fair amount
of evidence to suggest that churches that become more political and
conservative aren’t recruiting more people to the right-wing cause, and in fact
may be driving people away.

One of the
biggest social trends of the past decade is the rapid growth of the
“nones” — people with no affiliation to organized religion — which is
particularly pronounced with younger Americans. Both Pew Research and
the Public Religion Research
Institute (PRRI) have found that up to a quarter of Americans
don’t identity with any religious tradition at all, up from 6 percent in 1991.
Four out of 10 Americans under the age of 30 are unchurched.

But where it
gets really interesting is when one starts looking at the reasons why. Most
nonreligious people — 78 percent, according to Pew Research
— were raised in a religion and abandoned it in adulthood. While most simply
say they no longer believe, there is some evidence that distaste for the
religious right has had a significant impact.According to PRRI,
nearly 30 percent of those who have left a church cite their disapproval of
religious homophobia as a reason. Sixteen percent say their churches became too
political and 19 percent cite the clergy sex abuse scandal.

Sixty-six
percent of nonbelievers in the PRRI survey agreed with the statement that
“religion causes more problems in society than it solves.”

Encouraging
ministers and priests to become more belligerent and more repressive in their
politics, in the face of these rapid changes in religious affiliation and
religious attitudes, is not likely to gain converts to the conservative cause.
It’s probably just going to make more people who were already feeling uneasy
with the conservative bent of much of Christianity to choose to leave their
churches, and quite possibly to abandon religion altogether.

Perhaps,
then, atheists should be the ones celebrating this executive order. Legally,
Trump’s latest order is largely toothless, but culturally, it’s only likely to
accentuate the aspects of religion Americans like the least, namely the
controlling and reactionary aspects of it. That, in turn, will encourage more
Americans to use their Sunday mornings for sleeping and shopping, rather than
enduring political lectures from conservative religious pastors.

Let's hope that by giving them a portion of what they want, Trump will have unwittingly accelerated their long term demise.

While the news of the House of Representatives vote on Trumpcare yesterday was depressing. On a more positive note, the "religious freedom" executive order signed by Der Trumpenführer, while troubling, failed to include the license to discriminate demanded by Christofascists and their political prostitutes in Congress. To say that the Christofascists and professional Christian class (who live well by peddling hate and division - think Tony Perkins and Brian brown as but two examples) are livid livid is an understatement. Here's a taste of Brian Brown's shrieking:

This
is the second time that President Trump has backed away from signing a
comprehensive order protecting religious liberty after LGBT groups complained
about the proposed actions. We cannot accept this capitulation on such a
critical issue and must fight back. Will you help us insist that President
Trump fulfill his repeated promises to protect the religious liberty of people
of faith?

By "help us" Brown means send money so that he can continue to make over $500,000 a year. Brown was far from alone in his wailing and lamentations over Trump's failure to exempt Christofascists from non-discrimination laws and ordinances. American Family Association hate monger Bryan Fischer was equally peeved and blamed Ivanka Trump and her Jewish husband for Der Trumpenführer's betrayal:

These
are essentially hollow promises on the president’s part. No church has ever
been deprived of its tax exempt status using the Johnson Amendment. . . . the
gravest concern is aroused by what the president did not say. The draft of this
executive order that was leaked to the liberal media in February contained
robust protections for Christians engaged in business from being compelled by
government to violate their own values and consciences in showdowns with the
radical, vitriolic, and virulently aggressive LGBT lobby. This
morning’s empty and symbolic action on the president’s part most likely betrays
the hidden hand of the president’s uber-liberal daughter, Ivanka, who likely
leaked the February draft to a liberal rag (The Nation) in order to
stir up enough intense outrage from the LGBT community to strangle this baby in
the cradle. It worked. Ivanka wore out her red pencil eviscerating the original
order, leaving us with today’s order which has very nice language but is virtually
entirely lacking in substance.

While Trump has delivered on some of his promises made to Christofascists, today's failure to include the much demanded anti-LGBT provisions underscores the reality that Christofascists and evangelical Christians are Motivated by two things: racism and homophobia. In their strange bubble detached from objective reality and moral decency, they believe that the rest of society harbors similar hatreds. That bubble is about to burst. A full one-third of the under 30 generation has left organized religion and many older Americans are following suit. A piece in Sojourner looks at this reality. Here are excerpts:

Last Friday, Jerry Falwell, Jr. took to Fox News to proclaim
that in Donald Trump, “evangelicals have found their dream
president.” Two years ago, this statement would have made virtually no
sense, at least on the surface. To many outside the white evangelical world, it
seemed — and still seems — inconceivable that a thrice-married serial
adulterer, ultimate materialist, casino owner, habitual liar, and unprincipled
deal-maker could ever become the standard bearer for a group that professes to
base their vote on “family values.”

In
the two years since Trump announced his candidacy, we have seen a remarkable
moral unmasking of white Americans who call themselves Christian, and in
particular those who claim the “evangelical” label. Eighty-one percent of white
evangelical voters cast their vote for Donald Trump, and the most recentPew Research poll puts Trump’s
support after his first 100 days in office at 78 percent among white
evangelicals (and 80 percent among white evangelicals who attend church once a
month).

In
supporting Trump’s crackdowns and, in Trump's words, “big" and
"beautiful” wall that will keep immigrants out, Falwell is explicitly and
proudly saying that white evangelicals voted for Trump notin spiteof his racist and xenophobic rhetoric about undocumented
immigrants, butbecause of this rhetoric. How that relates to
Christians, including evangelicals, who are in direct relationship to the
undocumented immigrants and refugees that Trump wants to deport or keep out of
our country, Falwell didn’t say.

Falwell also didn’t mention that Trump’s agenda and proposed
budget would brutally cut off vital support to all “the least of these” that
Jesus asks us to protect in the 25th chapter of Matthew’s gospel. . . . . Jerry
Falwell Jr. has once again shown himself to be nothing more or less than a
Republican political operative, interested in advancing his preferred policy
agenda much more than examining what it means to be a Christian.

This is about the moral hypocrisy of white American
evangelical religious right leaders like Jerry Falwell Jr. causing a crisis in
the church, dividing American Christians on racial lines, and astonishing the
worldwide body of Christ — the international majority of evangelical Christians
who are people of color — and whose leaders keep asking many of us what in the
world is going on with white American evangelicals.

That number, 81 percent, has become an international symbol
that tragically now represents what white American evangelicalism stands for.
It dramatically and painfully symbolizes the white ethno-nationalism that
Donald Trump appeals to and continues to draw support from among white American
evangelicals. It is the most revealing and hurtful metric of what I will call
the racial idolatry of white American evangelical Christianity . . . . .

Racism is not a gospel issue to the Falwells, and never has
been. That Donald Trump began his political career with a racist lie about
America’s first black president isn’t an issue for Falwell, Jr. That Trump
opened his campaign by demonizing immigrants in calling them “rapists” and
“criminal” doesn’t matter to Jr. either. And Trump’s xenophobic assaults on
Muslims seems to be something that Falwell. also agrees with, as his comments
at the Liberty University convocation in 2015 indicate.

That Trump is the dream president for people like Falwell and
such a nightmare for the vast majority of evangelical, Pentecostal, and
Catholic Christians around the world, and our brothers and sisters of color in
the United States, really says it all.

This stark contrast reveals
white evangelical Christianity in America as a bubble — a very destructive one,
and one that is about to burst.

I hope the bubble bursts soon and that it accelerates the de-legitimization of conservative Christianity as a positive moral force in society. Conservative Christianity is a pestilence that needs to be removed from society. No deference is deserved and the media needs to cease providing a platform to Christofascist leaders and granting a false equivalency to their beliefs.

Thursday, May 04, 2017

As Republicans were jubilant today over the House of Representative's passage of the American Health Care Act - Trumpcare or Ryancare in common parlance - several thoughts crossed my mind, not the least of which is the utter hypocrisy of Republicans lying through their teeth to claim that no one would lose coverage, that no one will have benefits cut, and that premium costs will fall. Obviously, these legislators are following the Hitler/Goebbels model: lie often enough and people will begin to believe the lie. The reality is, however, that everyday experience of average Americans will reveal the depravity of House Republicans and the depth of the lie. The dishonesty of House Republicans should come as no surprise for those who have followed the transformation of the GOP into a sectarian party controlled by greedy billionaires and evangelical/fundamentalist Christians. From decades in politics, no one, and I mean no one in modern day America lies more than the evangelical/fundamentalist Christian crowd. By the same token, few groups in American society are so infused with greed and selfishness than the "godly folk." A piece in the Washington Post looks at what the reality will be if today's hideous bill passes the U.S. Senate (which is thankfully, a long shot). Here are article highlights.

I
won’t mince words. The health-care bill that the House of Representativespassed this afternoon, in an incredibly narrow 217-to-213
vote, is not just wrong, or misguided, or problematic or foolish.It is an abomination. If there has been
a piece of legislation in our lifetimes that boiled over with as much malice
and indifference to human suffering, I can’t recall what it might have been.
And every member of the House who voted for it must be held accountable.

There’s
certainly a process critique one can make about this bill. We might focus on
the fact that Republicans are rushing to pass it without having held a single
hearing on it, without a score from the Congressional Budget Office that would
tell us exactly what the effects would be, and before nearly anyone has had a
chance to even look at the bill’s actual text — all this despite the fact that
they are remaking one-sixth of the American economy and affecting all of our
lives . . .

We
might talk about how every major stakeholder group — the American Medical
Association, the American Hospital Association, the AARP, the American Cancer
Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, andon and on— all
oppose the bill.

But the real problem is what’s in
the bill itself. Here are some of the things it does:

Takes health insurance away from at least 24 million
Americans; that was the number the CBO estimated for a previous version of
the bill, and the number for this one is probably higher.

Turns Medicaid into a block grant, enabling states to
kick otherwise-eligible people off their coverage and cut benefits if they
so choose.

Slashes Medicaid overall by $880 billion over 10 years.

Removes the subsidies that the ACA provided to help
middle-income people afford health insurance, replacing them with far more
meager tax credits pegged not to people’s income but to their age. Poorer
people would get less than they do now, while richer people would get
more; even Bill Gates would get a tax credit.

Allows insurers to impose yearly and lifetime caps on
coverage, which were outlawed by the ACA. This also, it was revealed
today, may threaten the coverage of the majority of non-elderly
Americans who get insurance through their employers.

Allows states to seek waivers from the ACA’s
requirement that insurance plans include essential benefits for things
such as emergency services, hospitalization, mental health care,
preventive care, maternity care, and substance abuse treatment.

Provides hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts
for families making over $250,000 a year.

Allows states to try to waive the ACA’s requirement
that insurers must charge people the same rates regardless of their
medical history. This effectively eviscerates the ban on denials for
preexisting conditions, since insurers could charge you exorbitant
premiums if you have a preexisting condition, effectively denying you
coverage.

Shunts those with preexisting conditions into high-risk
pools, which are absolutely the worst way to cover those patients;
experience with them on the state level proves that they wind up
underfunded, charge enormous premiums, provide inadequate benefits and
can’t cover the population they’re meant for. Multiple analyses have
shown that the money the bill provides for high-risk pools
is laughably inadequate, which will inevitably leave huge numbers of the
most vulnerable Americans without the ability to get insurance.

Brings back medical underwriting, meaning that just
like in the bad old days, when you apply for insurance you’ll have to
document every condition or ailment you’ve ever had.

It is no exaggeration to say that if
it were to become law, this bill would kill significant numbers of Americans. .
. . People
whose serious conditions put them up against lifetime limits or render them
unable to afford what’s on offer in the high-risk pools, and are suddenly
unable to get treatment.

Those
deaths are not abstractions, and those who vote to bring them about must be
held to account. This can and should be a career-defining vote for every member
of the House. No one who votes for something this vicious should be allowed to
forget it — ever. They should be challenged about it at every town hall
meeting, at every campaign debate, in every election and every day as the
letters and phone calls from angry and betrayed constituents make clear the
intensity of their revulsion at what their representatives have done.

The Republican
health-care bill is an act of monstrous cruelty. It should stain those who
supported it to the end of their days.

The heart of the bill is the same one that was polling at under 20
percent and failed two months ago: a near-trillion dollar tax cut for wealthy
investors, financed by cuts to insurance subsidies for the poor and middle
class. They have added a series of hazily defined changes: waivers for states
to allow insurers to charge higher rates to people with preexisting conditions
and to avoid covering essential health benefits, and a pitifully small
amount of money to finance high-risk pools for sick patients.

The implications of these changes are vast. The Brookings Institution
notes that if a single state eliminated the cap on lifetime benefits for a
single employee, then employers in every state could actually follow suit, thus
bringing back a horrid feature of the pre-Obamacare system, in which people who
get hit with expensive treatment suddenly discover that their insurer will no
longer pay for their care. This would affect not only those getting insurance
through Medicaid or the state exchanges, but also through their job.

They
are rushing through a chamber of Congress a bill reorganizing one-fifth of the
economy, without even cursory attempts to gauge its impact. Its budgetary
impact is as yet unknown. The same is true of its social impact, though the
broad strokes are clear enough: Millions of Americans will lose access to
medical care, and tens of thousands of them will die, and Congress is eager to
hasten these results without knowing them more precisely.Their haste and
secrecy are a way of distancing the House Republicans from the immorality of
their actions.

If Donald Trump signs the promised anti-LGBT "religious freedom" executive order today, America will have taken the first step to legalize the open abuse of LGBT Americans. The move will electrify the 81% of evangelical Christians who voted for Trump, a twice divorced, serial adulterer and sexual predator as part of their quest to inflict a form of Christian sharia law on America. From Trump's perspective, the move will be akin to Vladimir Putin's anti-homosexuality laws aimed at strengthening support from the similarly anti-gay Russian Orthodox Church which has long placed advancing its own political power ahead of democratic principles and/or the civil rights of others. The New York Times looks at the anti-gay pogrom underway in the Russian republic of Chechnya which is an outgrowth of legalized homophobia and religious extremism being championed by one of Putin's henchmen. The ultimate motivation is political both for Putin and his lapdog, Ramzan
Kadyrov. Here are highlights:

At the beginning of April, reports surfaced that a crackdown on gay
men was afoot in Chechnya, the small, turbulent republic on the southern edge
of the Russian Federation. According to the independent Russian newspaper
Novaya Gazeta, more than 100 gay men were rounded up by the police and
brutalized in secret prisons, and at least three of them were killed. Many remain
in detention.

In fear and desperation, 75
people called in to the Russian LGBT Network’s
Chechnya hotline. Of these, 52 said they had been victims of the recent
violence, and 30 fled to Moscow where they received help from L.G.B.T.
activists.

“Once they bring you there,”
a survivor told me, referring to the secret prison in Chechnya where he’d been
detained, “they immediately start the beatings and electrocutions, demanding
information about who you were dating.”

This persecution of gays is symptomatic of the repressive regime that
now runs Chechnya. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union a quarter-century
ago, that rugged outpost of the old empire has lived through separatist
agitation, terrorism and two bloody wars. Tens of thousands of people have been killed, some 5,000 are still
missing, and its towns were left in ruins.

Chechnya’s
autocratic leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, has enjoyed near unconditional support from
Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin. Mr. Kadyrov’s father, Akhmad, started
out as a separatist Islamic leader, but at the beginning of Russia’s second
military campaign against Chechen rebels, which began in 1999, he swapped sides
to support Moscow.

Mr.
Kadyrov ensured that his fighters were integrated into the local police force,
largely preserving the command chains, and their violent skills were deployed
in heavy-handed counterterrorism operations on behalf of the Kremlin.

Loyalty to Moscow was rewarded with lavish federal funds to raise
Chechen towns from rubble and build shiny skyscrapers in the capital, Grozny.

Collective punishment is the
hallmark of Mr. Kadyrov’s repression. Relatives of those who displease the
authorities are threatened, beaten, held hostage, expelled from the republic or
have their homes burned down. Such methods were first applied to suspected
rebels but have spread to regime critics, religious dissenters, even drunken
drivers. The same techniques have now been applied to the families of men
thought to be gay, which are threatened with detention unless the suspects turn
themselves in to the police.

In
this climate of humiliation and immense fear, Chechens are fleeing the Russian
Federation en masse. Yet the Kremlin turns a blind eye to such excesses
in return for allegiance. Mr. Kadyrov calls himself a foot soldier for Mr.
Putin.

The regime’s coercive methods are allied with punitive conservative
values. Official Chechen ideology is a mix of traditionalism, Sufi
Islam and Putinism. The authorities have banned alcohol, enforced dress codes and “moral behavior”
for women, supported honor killings and blood feuds,
and even closed orphanages as being alien to Chechen culture.

As news
reports emerged about the arrests of gay men in the republic, Mr. Kadyrov met
with Mr. Putin on April 19. Mr. Kadyrov is said to have complained to the Russian
president about the “provocative articles” in the news media on issues he felt
“embarrassed” to talk about. This show of coyness and piety no doubt played
well with his supporters. Since the news broke, the Chechen leadership has
fomented homophobia. . . . . in fact, it is part of their new ideology of a
‘pure nation.’ ”

By
promoting nationalism and traditionalism, Mr. Kadyrov tries to prove to
Chechens that their republic now has more autonomy than separatist leaders ever
dreamed of; and this justifies his strong pro-Putin position. But his appeal to
tradition is self-serving and spurious. Until now, Chechnya never had any
record of organized violence against gays.

Mr. Kadyrov and his clique depend entirely on Mr. Putin. It is within
the Russian president’s power to halt the violence against gay men, empty the
illegal prisons and force an investigation into this crackdown. If Mr. Putin
continues to give the Kremlin’s tacit approval to Mr. Kadyrov’s repressions, he
is only storing up trouble for the Russian Federation.

The Chechen conflict has not been resolved but merely contained
by brute force and a personal bond between the two leaders. In the long run,
such an unstable situation makes a deadly new conflict in Chechnya almost
inevitable.

Putin will not stop the mayhem since he needs the Russian Orthodox Church to help legitimize his dictatorship in Russia. That Trump seemingly supports despots like Putin and Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines ought to gravely concern decent and moral Americans. As shown by their support of Trump, this latter categorization does not include evangelical Christians as a whole.

Later today, Donald Trump - who I refer to as Der Trumpenführer - is reportedly scheduled to sign a so-called "religious freedom" executive order. The order has nothing to do with protecting religious freedom for all Americans but instead would grant special rights and privileges to Christian extremists - the Christofascists, if you will. If the order is as expected, Christofascists will be granted a license to discriminate at will against LGBT individuals and possibly others who do not conform to Christofascists' religious views. The driving force behind the effort? Obviously, the religious based hatred of Christofascists toward anyone and/or anything that challenges their beliefs or underscores the fallibility of the Bible, a work first authored by ignorant, uneducated, unknown Bronze Age authors. The other is the political opportunism of Republicans and reactionary politicians and autocrats who see fanning homophobia as a means to motivate Christofascist voters in America, and scapegoat minorities to retain power in Russia, much of Africa and parts of South and Central America. A lengthy piece in Foreign Affairs looks at the anti-gay backlash and the poisonous religion dogmas and political whores/autocrats who care nothing about the lives they harm so long as they remain in power. Here are highlights:

No
revolution worth its salt comes without pushback. The fight for gay
rights—widely regarded as “the fastest of all civil rights movements”
(over a short period of time, 20 nations have come to recognize same-sex
marriage and an additional 15 now allow same-sex civil unions)—is no exception.
A shooting rampage last June at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, by
a terrorist who had expressed loathing for the LGBT community, was the
deadliest assault ever on the American gay community and attests to the viciousness
of this pushback. But that was only one incident. In recent years, there has
been a global backlash against gay rights that runs from the United States,
through many parts of the global South, to Russia and other parts of the
post–Communist world.

The
opposition to gay rights comes in two strains and reflects what the
Pew Research Center has called “the global divide on homosexuality.” In
Western Europe and the Americas, home to the world’s most democratically
advanced states and the largest and most sophisticated gay rights movements,
the gay backlash takes the form of a counter-revolution designed to intimidate
the gay community and roll back gains in gay rights. Across Africa, the Middle
East, and much of the post–Communist world, the parts of the globe where
democracy, civil society, and human rights are either in short supply or
struggling, the gay backlash consists of a “preemptive strike” meant to stop the
gay rights movement before it can gain its footing. This involves passing
legislation that criminalizes or re-criminalizes homosexuality and that bans
the promotion of homosexuality. Both strains, however, serve to fuel anti-gay
violence and discrimination, and have exposed the political, rather than
cultural nature of the backlash.

In
Europe, there have been massive protests against same-sex marriage, especially
in Catholic-majority countries. . . . The protests were for the most part
peaceful, but at least one demonstration in May 2013 turned violent, forcing
the police to use tear gas and batons to disperse demonstrators.

Across
Latin America, the gay backlash has been felt most profoundly in Brazil, where
the highest court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in 2011. Since then,
Brazilian legislators have retaliated with a plethora of anti-gay bills that
call for redefining the family to exclude homosexual couples, for establishing
a national day of “heterosexual pride,” and for banning “Christ-phobia,” or the
desecration of Christian symbols. The ban targets the provocative floats mixing
religious imagery and sexuality typical of Brazilian gay pride parades.
Although these bills don’t really stand much chance of ever becoming law (for
one thing, they are of dubious constitutionality), they contribute to the
homophobic culture that underpins Brazil’s massive problem with gay killings.

It
is in the United States, however, where, along with liberal democracy, the
strongest backlash against gay rights can be found. We can count three distinct
waves. The first began immediately after the rise of the gay liberation
movement in the 1970s and entailed nothing short of moral panic. Its most
dramatic manifestation was country singer Anita Bryant’s “Save the Children”
campaign, which succeeded in overturning an anti-discrimination ordinance
enacted in Dade County, Florida, by depicting homosexuals as pedophiles. A
second wave of backlash crashed in the late 1990s. Between 1998 and 2012, some
30 states enacted constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.

A
third wave arrived in 2013 in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to
strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, a 1997 law that barred the
federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. A virtual tsunami of
legislation intended to undermine LGBT rights has ensued: 254 anti-gay bills
have been introduced, 20 of which have become law. In the first half of 2016
alone, 87 bills that could in theory limit LGBT rights were introduced, a steep
increase from previous years. The bulk of these laws are justified as measures
to protect religious freedom. The passage of bills of this kind has increased
by at least 50 percent every year between 2013 and 2015.

Russia’s
“gay propaganda law,” enacted in 2013, has
also earned its share of infamy. It punishes anyone who promotes homosexuality
with jail time and fines. So broadly written is the law that, in principle, it outlaws
pride parades; public displays of affection by same-sex couples; gay newspapers
and magazines; gay-themed literature, television, and films; and symbols of the
LGBT community, such as the rainbow flag. Even an admission of homosexuality,
unless the admission is made in order to denounce homosexuality, can be
considered illegal.

Darker
still is the picture across Central Asia and the Middle East, where the gay
backlash has unleashed a nasty wave of anti-gay violence. Since March, more
than 100 gay and bisexual men have been reported tortured, held in camps, and
killed in the semi-autonomous Russian Republic of Chechnya. For several years
now, the world has been horrified by the ghastly antics of the Islamic State
(also known as ISIS), which has been beheading gays and throwing them from
rooftops in the territories that it controls. . . .

What
is causing the global gay rights backlash is less clear, since societal
acceptance of homosexuality in most countries has never been higher. A popular
sociological explanation is that increasing visibility makes LGBT people an
easier target for anti-gay rights activists. . . . Although this visibility has
had a positive effect, leading to greater acceptance of the gay community, the
normalization has also galvanized staunch opponents. As Mark Potok, a senior
fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, told The New York Times,
“As the majority of society becomes more tolerant of LGBT people, some of those
who are opposed to them become more radical.”

Another
popular explanation is the enduring strength of homophobia, which flows from
the cultural heterosexism embedded in most religions. Public polls show that
societal acceptance of homosexuality is intimately linked to levels of social
and economic development and rates of religiosity. The higher the religiosity,
the lower the acceptance rate of homosexuality, and vice versa.

Decidedly
less noted, and therefore less understood, are the political roots of the gay
backlash. By openly embracing anti-gay violence and extremely homophobic
legislation, many autocratic regimes across the world are doing what such
regimes have done for centuries to groups as varied as Jews, heretics, and
various ethnic minorities: scapegoating a socially despised minority as a way
to consolidate power, to justify conservative policies, and to distract from
other issues.

The
governments of Egypt and Iran, for example, employ anti-gay violence in a way
that is strikingly similar to the way terrorist organizations, such as ISIS,
use violence. Beheading and hanging gays is as much about punishing individuals
as it is about intimidating a community or an entire group of people. Russia’s
“war on gays” is more a reflection of President Vladimir Putin’s desire to
crack down on civil and political liberties than it is an expression of
homophobia in Russian culture. Before Putin’s rise, Russia had decriminalized
homosexual activity immediately following the fall of Communism.

Although
homophobia in Africa is often seen as an “ancient hatred,” its history is
surprisingly short. A study by Human Rights Watch revealed that roughly
half of the world’s remaining anti-sodomy laws are holdovers from British
colonial rule. . . . Leaders such as Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe discovered that
they could score political gains by condemning homosexuals and demonizing
homosexuality as a “Western perversion.”

Politicians
in the West, but especially in the United States, have also found that
exploiting hostility toward homosexuality can score them political points,
especially around election time. . . . Karl Rowe, the architect of George W.
Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign, put same-sex marriage referenda in as many
states as possible for the sole purpose of mobilizing so-called value voters.
That year, 11 state anti-gay marriage referenda were put to the voters,
including in the very important swing state of Ohio.

U.S.
President Donald Trump, despite his pledge at the 2016 GOP National Convention
to protect LGBT Americans from violence and discrimination, ran on a platform
described by gay Republicans as the GOP’s “most anti-LGBT platform” in the party’s
162-year history. . . . While these anti-gay stances no longer have the popular
political appeal that they once had, they still serve the useful purpose of
keeping social conservatives within the GOP’s fold.

If there is a silver lining to the gay backlash, it is that
the backlash is forcing the international community to confront the issue of
anti-gay violence and discrimination. . . . faster and more effective change
could come if the international community took a stronger stance against those
regimes inclined to use gays as a political scapegoat and to employ homophobia
as a political tool.

In the Philippines a reign of terror is underway at the directions of President Rodrigo Duterte. More than 2,000 have been murdered by police alone. All one needs to do is accuse someone of being a drug trafficker or drug user and license is granted to have them murdered literally in the streets. No indictment, no trial, no regard for whether the allegations are even true. The New York Times has a must read story and accompanying photo series that looks at the horrors being done at the direction of a man Donald Trump wants to bring to the White House. Here's a taste of what the piece recounts over and over again:

In another
neighborhood, Riverside, a bloodied Barbie doll lay next to the body of a
17-year-old girl who had been killed alongside her 21-year-old boyfriend. “They are
slaughtering us like animals,” said a bystander who was afraid to give his
name.

What
I experienced in the Philippines felt like a new level of ruthlessness: police
officers’ summarily shooting anyone suspected of dealing or even using drugs,
vigilantes’ taking seriously Mr. Duterte’s call to “slaughter them all.”

Compared to what's happening in the Philippines, Vladimir Putin's political murders look like child's play. So what is driving Trump's love affair with Duterte? A piece in the Washington Post suggests money. Here are article highlights:

Investors
looking to buy a condo at Trump Tower in the Philippines would have found,
until this week, some high-powered video testimonials on theproject’s official website.

There was Donald Trump, in a message filmed several years before he was
elected president of the United States, declaring that the skyscraper bearing
his name near the Philippine capital would be “something very, very special,
like nobody’s seen before.” Then there was his daughterIvanka Trump, now a senior White House
adviser, lavishing praise on the project as a “milestone in Philippine real
estate history.”

Four months into President Trump’s tenure, his business relationship with
a developer who is one of the Philippines’ richest and most powerful men has
emerged as a prime example of the collision between the private interests of a
businessman in the White House and his public responsibility to shape U.S.
foreign policy.

The potential
conflict first came into focus shortly before Trump was elected, when the
Philippines’ iron-fisted president, Rodrigo Duterte, named the Trump
Organization’s partner on the Manila real estate venture his top trade envoy.

The connection burst back into public view this week, after Trump stunned
human rights advocates by extending a White House invitation to Duterte, known
for endorsing hundreds of extrajudicial killings of drug users, following what
aides described as a “very friendly” phone call.

In
a long-term licensing deal, the project’s development company agreed to pay
royalties for use of the Trump brand. Trump reported receiving $1 million
to $6 million in payments from the project between 2014 and mid-2016,
according to his financial disclosures. . . . . Trump left the
management of his company to his two adult sons, but he retained his ownership
stake and can still withdraw money from his business interests at any time.[T]o ethics
experts who have warned for months that Trump’s refusal to divest from his
business created the potential for his personal financial interests to compete
with his public role, Trump’s recent interactions with Duterte serve as a
worrisome sign.

“It does look like the way he is handling U.S. policy to the Philippines
is consistent with Donald Trump’s business interests,” said Kathleen Clark, a
law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who is an expert on
government ethics. “It is inconsistent with how the U.S. has been relating to
Duterte since he came to power. But it is consistent with what is important to
Donald Trump.”

“Manila
represented a great opportunity for our brand,” Ivanka Trump says in a
promotional reel. The video ends with a plug from Donald Trump, who says: “It’s
really great working with Century Properties and the Antonio family. True
professionals, they really know what they’re doing.”The
Trumps and the Antonios also have discussed partnering on new Trump resorts and
other projects in the Philippines, Jose Antonio said in interviews late last
year.

Disturbing at best. And what cannot be stressed enough, in my view, is that 81% of evangelical Christians voted for Trump and the baggage that goes with him, including support for a monster like Duterte. Morally bankrupt doesn't begin to describe these voters. Please read the New York Times piece. Yes, it is very disturbing, but one needs to know who Trump may be in bed with.

Translate This Page

Contact Me to Order Title Work

LGBT Legal Services

About Me

Out gay attorney in a committed relationship; formerly married and father of three wonderful children; sometime activist and political/news junkie; survived coming out in mid-life and hope to share my experiences and reflections with others.
In the career/professional realm, I am affiliated with Caplan & Associates PC where I practice in the areas of real estate, estate planning (Wills, Trusts, Advanced Medical Directives, Financial Powers of Attorney, Durable Medical Powers of Attorney); business law and commercial transactions; formation of corporations and limited liability companies and legal services to the gay, lesbian and transgender community, including birth certificate amendment.

Disclaimer on Opinions and Content

This Blog contains content that may be innapropriate for readers under the legal age of 18. IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, PLEASE LEAVE NOW. Thank you

This is an opinion and commentary blog and the opinions and contents of this Blog - including opinions expressed concerning opponents of LGBT equality - are the opinions only of the individual blogger and should not be attributed to any other individuals or to any organization of which the blogger is a past or current member.

Followers

Michael-in-Norfolk disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, operability, or availability of information or material displayed on this site and does not claim credit for any images or articles featured on this site, unless otherwise noted. All visual content is copyrighted to it's respectful owners. Information on this site may contain errors or inaccuracies, and Michael-in-Norfolk does not make warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the site's content. If you own rights to any of the images or articles, and do not wish them to appear on this site, please contact Michael-in-Norfolk via e-mail and they will be promptly removed. Michael-in-Norfolk contains links to other Internet sites. These links are provided solely as a convenience and are not endorsements of any products or services in such sites, and no information or content in such site has been endorsed or approved by this blog.